By on June 18, 2011

A chicken could become as unreachable as caviar in many poor countries, warns a study of the OECD and the United Nations. Chicken is projected to rise in price by 30 percent in the next ten years – inflation adjusted. Other staple foods such as corn, sugar or cooking oil are seen rising in price by twenty percent. Why? On one side of the ledger is higher demand, mainly from China and India. On the other side: „Increasingly, the crop doesn’t end up in the pot, but as fuel in the tanks of cars,“ says the German magazine Der Spiegel.

This trend is fueled, so to speak, by a shortage of water and higher energy costs. “Higher prices may be good for farmers, for people who spend a large share of their income on food, this is a catastrophe,“ says OECD General Secretary Angel Gurría.

In the coming week, agricultural ministers of the G20 will have a meeting in Paris to discuss the price increases. Aid organization Oxfam doesn’t expect any results from the meeting. The organization predicts that governments will not stop their ethanol subsidies. Oxfam warns:

“Huge numbers of people, especially in the world’s poorest countries, are cutting back on the quantity or quality of the food they eat because of rising food prices. World leaders – especially leaders of the powerful G20 countries – must act now to fix our broken food system. They must regulate the commodity markets and reform flawed biofuels policies to keep food prices in check.”

What seems to have more results are buyer strikes against ethanol, such as the one in Germany.

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

69 Comments on “United Nations: This Is Your Car On Ethanol...”


  • avatar
    Sgt Beavis

    I can’t stand the United Nations but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. They are dead on correct with this..

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      My thoughts exactly.

    • 0 avatar

      I find it so incredible that the lifestyles of the super rich, the middle class and working poor are all being supported off the backs of unhealthy African kids, or being manufactured by the hands of unhealthy Asian kids.

      If there is a God, this world is going to burn in Hell. Shipping weapons to poor countries and propping up dictators so they can enslave people for Coltan, Oil and even cocoa among other things.

      • 0 avatar
        Sgt Beavis

        Yea, we’re all just so damn evil.

      • 0 avatar
        vento97

        > Yea, we’re all just so damn evil.

        Private Beavis:

        For your admission of evil, you are subject to an Article 15 sarcasm offense – which will result in a reduction in pay and rank.

        You will also have a letter of reprimand on file as long as you post on TTAC….;)

      • 0 avatar
        vento97

        That being said – how about getting rid of the golden handcuffs (a.k.a. government subsidies) to farmers so they can actually COMPETE in the global market?

  • avatar
    eldard

    I blame those stupid tree huggers. Oh, well. Glad I live in a very resource-rich area.

    • 0 avatar
      Philosophil

      I don’t know what you have against people with environmental concerns, but to the best of my knowledge most ‘tree-huggers’ are opposed to farming for ethanol. This kind of knee-jerk prejudice is neither constructive nor healthy.

      • 0 avatar
        eldard

        But very fun.

      • 0 avatar
        Philosophil

        Oh, so that’s what’s going on. Fair enough. In that case I’ll try not to bite as much from now on (or try to be equally cheeky when I do).

      • 0 avatar
        Dr Lemming

        Philo, agreed (first comment above). Yet this kind of talk is passed off as “fun?” Yeah, right.

        So is Demetri below also having fun by blaming poor people for their own poverty? I like this site’s automotive analysis but its political arch-conservatism is getting hard to take. But fortunately there are a half-a-dozen other automotive sites that feed my interest.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckR

        best of my knowledge most ‘tree-huggers’ are opposed to farming for ethanol

        Wasn’t true of Al Gore, although he recently saw the light when political considerations weren’t as large in his calculations. I think if you look back far enough, tree huggers did see ethanol as a partial substitute for the evils of petroleum. The farm lobby drove a truck through that opening. OTOH, it could be I’m conflating liberals like Tom Harkin and tree huggers. I have no objection to ethanol as long as it doesn’t come from a food grain or from a crop grown in place of a food grain because of the distortion of the long term subsidies.

        So is Demetri below also having fun by blaming poor people for their own poverty?

        I don’t think so. Even in poor nations, there are low or no cost contraceptives available. So I might blame the men who think using a condom isn’t manly. I might blame the ruling elites who regard these efforts as covert genocide or who for other reasons can’t be bothered with family planning efforts.

      • 0 avatar
        Demetri

        I’m not blaming people for their own poverty. I’m blaming them for creating new people to suffer along with them in poverty.

  • avatar
    Robert.Walter

    Somewhere else on this site, a couple of times already, more than a year ago, I’ve likened the whole grain-based bio-fuel effort, if actually used (rather than being held for emergencies like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) is not quite as severe, but still similar to Eating Your Feed Corn…

    If one has to begin to use food for fuel (with all the nasty attendent effects), then one has to wonder about the long-term wisdom of continued dependence on that fuel mode, or fuel source.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    Ethanol is a net loss energy on energy production. That alone should be enough to kill it. But with Big Agriculture in the driver’s seat, they don’t care as long as they cash in. I am willing to bet that the thought of starving folks won’t budge their sympathy meter. They will write a donation check, grab the tax break and smile…it is not the “tree huggers”; the vast majority of the environmental community opposes ethanol. As usual, its the profiteers at it again.

  • avatar
    gslippy

    I would argue that this finding is not really in opposition to the desires of the Left, since another goal of the UN is global population control (utilizing the varied ‘tools’ of education, birth control, government policies, and abortion – each of which is riddled with controversy).

    So when you realize that to the UN, humans are the enemy of the Earth, ethanol subsidies that starve people are not out of step with saving the Earth.

    • 0 avatar
      Philosophil

      Are you claiming that the UN would support a program because it promoted starvation? That’s just a little crazy.

      Further, you’re now saying that the ‘left’ is actually anti-humanity?

      The extremist, nonsensical hyperbole being expressed here lately is getting more and more bizarre….

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        @Philosophil: Yes, I am claiming those things. The UN’s record on life-saving efforts is shameful; all one has to do is look at its abysmal record at ‘peace’-keeping and humanitarian aid efforts around the world, particularly in Africa. If the UN was serious about saving lives, it would smash into Somalia, crush the pirates, and save those who are suffering, just to give an example.

        The UN is a political organization bent far to the left, whose agenda embraces the man-made global warming hoax. Global warmests warn us about the negative impact of Man upon the environment, and the solutions always include more government controls and less human activity (i.e., less humans). While some UN policies promote humanity’s right to exist, the global-warming agenda basically does not.

        The UN isn’t going to shed any tears if a few million poor people starve to death, while it debates whether to send in some blue helmets to help out. Likewise, it’s willing to just stand by while nations debate ethanol policies that are clearly detrimental to each country’s economy and the lives of those impacted accordingly.

      • 0 avatar
        gslippy

        Actually, the UN’s decision to put Libya on its Human Rights Council means it really has nothing to say about caring for humanity.

      • 0 avatar
        aristurtle

        The UN’s job is to provide a venue for countries to talk in the hopes that we’d be less likely to all nuke each other.

        That’s it. That’s why it came into existence and that’s what it’s for. Everything beyond that is a bonus. Some of the extra stuff works well (the WHO, for example) and some doesn’t (putting Libya in charge of a human rights committee).

  • avatar
    Demetri

    Hard to blame ethanol for this. The real problem is massively irresponsible people who are cranking out kids in poverty who they can’t even begin to take care of.

    • 0 avatar

      Because poverty is simply a matter of irresponsibility and not any institutional structures in place that make it harder for people in poverty to get out of it. But go ahead and blame people who probably don’t have access to birth control for churning out kid after kid.

      • 0 avatar
        ChevyIIfan

        John: That’s not a bad argument, but the problem is still with the people who are irresponsibly cranking out kids. The people know what causes them to have more kids, it doesn’t just happen by eating dinner. So a family that is poor already has 2, 3, or more starving kids they can’t feed, and they know they can’t afford birth control. OK, understandable. Why would they knowingly do the deed to knowing they will likely have another child as a result? The only way that is explainable is if you are inferring they are stupid… which is very irresponsible. But if you do think they are stupid, they are probably the last people who need to be reproducing- but that is an entirely different argument.

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        Take this scenario: If three out of four children die before growing up, and you want a child to grow up — and take care of you when you get old (no government pension programs here) — how many children would you expect poor, uneducated people to have? They are looking out for themselves, not for their country, let alone the planet.

    • 0 avatar
      ChevyIIfan

      +10 Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner here…

    • 0 avatar
      Signal11

      Dirt poor people have more children because they are poor. In extremely poor societies, children have a high mortality rates and serve as a hedge against the future. They’re an insurance and from the self interested perspective of the family, make perfect rational sense.

      It’s also been demonstrated time and time again that in the correlation between poverty and high birth rates, poverty leads birth rate. You don’t reduce poverty by reducing birth rate (a ridiculous notion on the face of it). You reduce birth rates by reducing poverty, which is the same pattern the world has followed almost without exception in recent centuries.

      Blaming poor people for “cranking out kids” is among the most ignorant and shallowest of thought patterns.

      • 0 avatar
        Demetri

        Great, so what’s your plan on stopping poverty? I’m interested in ending human suffering, but are we making progress in ending poverty?

        My previous statement still stands in the way it was intended, which is on a moral/philosophical level, not as a plan to end poverty. There aren’t many things that irk me more than people refusing to take responsibility for their own actions and choices. What does it say about someone who continues to reproduce when they know that their children will have to suffer? To me there are few things more despicable.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        If you want to end poverty you need to allow market forces to allocate resources, as they will then see their most efficient use. It takes a corrupt government that corrupts markets to bring about the burning of food in gas tanks, making everyone waste money and oil here, and depriving the world of what was a surplus of food to address poverty in parts of the world that have already been victims of the sort of government we now have in the US.

      • 0 avatar
        Signal11

        My plan for alleviating poverty? I don’t have a good one, certainly not one that is applicable in all cases, across all regions of the world. I’m not that big a thinker so I confine myself to medical care in conflicts, disaster and outbreak/epidemic response. Those guys who do long term development work have a much tougher job than I do and over time, I have come to the realization that I merely treat the symptoms – it’s those guys who cure the disease.

        Anyways, there’s are a lot of ways to attack poverty. The avenue I’ve chosen to participate on that side is on the malnutrition front. All of my experience have lead me to believe that the primary losses in productivity in a population happen before the work force reaches what could be called the working age in the form of permanent childhood developmental losses due to poor nutrition. These losses are significant and measurable. I’ve worked for a couple organizations that develop and build plants for therapeutic and supplemental foods in the developing world, all for little to no money. The factory provides jobs, the agricultural networks that provide the raw materials in turn provide more jobs, with capital injections at several levels. I haven’t seen the projects I’ve worked with and the plants I’ve built or had a hand in building become self sustaining, but they’re getting there.

        As for “market forces.” That’s a slogan or a screed, not a solution. The real world solution to a real world complex human problem isn’t going to be to let it all sort itself out.

      • 0 avatar
        aspade

        If you can barely feed let alone educate one child then what do you expect your finances to look like when you have five more? When the rest of the refugee camp does the same thing another 6,000 times? Supply and demand is going to be magically suspended and they’ll be assets instead?

        Of course leftists get hot and bothered at the idea of blaming people. Their dogma doesn’t accept that individuals might be responsible for their choices. It only grudgingly accepts the concept of individuals at all.

        And while you squish around without the balls to even admit what the problem is these people continue to squirt out children with little hope and less chance.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        If you want to end poverty you need to allow market forces to allocate resources, as they will then see their most efficient use.

        And you’re going to get that without a government? Unregulated, the major players in a market become the de facto government. That’s what you have in Somalia, and it’s what we’ll see in Mexico in a few years if things don’t turn around there.

        “The market” needs one of two things in order to function: either rule of law, or 100% angelic, sinless people. Since the latter is only slightly unlikely, you’ll need some kind of government to enforce law and encourage equality. This is why “the market” working perfectly is as much a piece of textbook wankery as Communism.

        Social democracy. Still the second-worst system, ahead of all the others.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    This is the result of the Green movement of misanthropic ignorance and lies. Organized environmentalists already kill three quarters of a million people every year, mostly African children, through their campaign against DDT: a chemical that was never actually proven to harm anything bigger than mosquitos. The potential of some bird eggs having thinner shells is worth more than millions of human lives are, or else killing people is the point all along.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      What is it with you guys rewriting history? DDT doesn’t cause, oh, thin eggshells in birds or mammarian cancer, global warming isn’t happening, FDR made the depression worse, mercury is actually good for you, black is white, etc, etc.

      Personally, I blame third-way liberals. Since they basically took ownership of the centre-right it’s effectively forced erstwhile conservatives to swallow their pride, switch teams and, eg, admit that Obama is about as liberal as Reagan and significantly more conservative than Nixon or, as is more likely, move over into full-blown extremism.

      And, as a result, we get stuff like this. As someone who is actually a pinko** is depresses me to see how skewed discourse has gotten, and yet that’s not enough–we have people trying to pull it even further?

      ** as in, I know what socialism actually is, rather than equating anything that isn’t Republican orthodoxy as “Marxism”

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Your brand of lies and hatred is killing hundreds of thousands of people. Like it always has done and always will do. Keep the rhetoric for people who don’t know better.

      • 0 avatar

        Mercury may not be good for you in certain forms, but it’s also found naturally in the Great Lakes.

        In terms of cost benefit analysis, though the suspected dangers of DDT were probably overstated, the dangers of not using it to combat malaria cannot be overstated. CJ is right, banning DDT has condemned millions to malaria.

        Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring is hardly a scientific treatise, but it does make good propaganda.

        There have been too many scare stories, alar on apples, for example, that now I regard members of the environmentalist religion as boys who cry wolf. I’m tired of being ruled by the precautionary principle and by people who think that science is “hiding the decline”.

      • 0 avatar
        ExPatBrit

        I wish there were an ignore button on here!

        CJinSD:

        “Your brand of lies and hatred is killing hundreds of thousands of people.”

        WTF!

      • 0 avatar
        Patrickj

        @psarhjinian

        It’s simple. Propaganda has been perfected.

        Anybody can be made to believe anything by today’s propaganda methods.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        Psar, don’t waste your time. CJ thinks that market forces running their own course without any regulation will take care of everything, or at the least if things are bad it is ok because the market dictated it.

        Blaming the banning of DDT for the deaths of “millions?” Really. Well, the damage caused by DDT was well documented. If saving lives is so important to CJ, why does he have such intense distaste for anything that requires the precious folks with their hands on the power levers of the economy to act in a manner that actually takes an interest in protecting the people that make their wealth possible? Let’s roll back the clock to the days before there were any of those pinko lefties throwing hurdles in the way of profit…How many died in coal mines…how about lives lost before fire regulations…people who died trudging to work because missing work meant being fired…sweatshops, child labor…construction accident deaths, unsafe products…the list is endless. Far more people have died in the name of profit than in protecting the bald eagle or any environmental cause. CJ, don’t hide behind any concern about people when grousing about anything that tampers with a pure capitalist economy. You stance, which you have made quite clear in your posts, shows no concern about people as a whole. You care about yourself, profit for the richest, shrimp-sized government, and little else. Which is fine if you can live with yourself. But don’t put concern for people as your reason for wanting to use deadly chemicals like DDT. You want to use it because its use stands for what you believe in.

    • 0 avatar
      Signal11

      I am probably the only guy in here who has actually deployed DDT the past ten years to control for mosquitos. In this case, a widespread but targeted indoor residual spraying for seasonal malaria outbreaks in IDP/refugee camps/villages in sub Saharan Africa.

      I have my problems with the small slice of environmentalists who have become functionally irrational, but it seems to me that you’re opinions are informed from one side and one side only The issues surrounding DDT use are complex, with few simple solutions. Anyone who tells you that this is easy is just wrong.

      • 0 avatar

        I managed waste streams for a large DuPont paint R&D. While doing so I finished about a third of the requirements for a masters degree in haz waste management. I’m no expert but my experience tells me that everything we do has an impact on the environment and that often the emotionally satisfying solution may not be as environmentally benign as the less “environmental” solution. Paper or plastic grocery bags are a good example. Paper mills, even those that recycle paper into craft paper used in grocery bags, are hardly pristine, clean and green. Plastic bags, on the other hand, can be recycled at least once as a trash bag.

        You have to look at things with an expansive perspective, include cradle to grave costs, and be willing to consider alternative solutions. You also always have to do a cost benefit analysis, something that seems to be missing from many solutions proffered by the environmentalist establishment.

        DDT and malaria is a great example of that. The kind of controlled spraying of DDT that you were doing will go a long way towards reducing death and disease from malaria but DDT is an boogeyman, an emotional subject to people that don’t have the first clue about the chemistry or that DDT can be used safely. All they know is that Joni Mitchell song telling the farmer to put away his DDT.

        Actually, Big Yellow Taxi and how people relate to it says a lot about environmentalists. If you ask an environmentalist what Big Yellow Taxi is about, they’ll say it’s a protest song against paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. I once suggested to someone with that view that maybe they needed to see it more broadly. The song is more generally about loss, that you don’t know what you got till it’s gone. That that big yellow taxi took away her old man who left her. The environmental stuff in the song is just a device to talk about losing her lover.

  • avatar
    ExPatBrit

    I predict that Ethanol subsidy will be back, inserted in the “dead of night” into some other bill.

    Just like defense programs like the F22, the second engine for the F35 and the V-22 Osprey this sucker will never die.

    Our bought and paid for bi-partisan representatives will ensure it’s continual existence one way of another.

    Grover Norquist will portray removing the subsidy as a “tax increase” and we know how one of the parties feels about tax increases.

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I like the F22. While the US might not rank first in literacy, average longevity, or privacy, we can at least take some pride in knowing we have the absolute best military hardware in the world by a wide margin. We have to share the F35 with a bunch of allies, the F22 can be our trump card. I also kind of like the Osprey – just because something doesn’t work is no reason to give up on it. If the basic idea is sound, it makes more sense to keep developing it until it does work so that all of the money invested up to that point isn’t a waste.

      • 0 avatar
        bunkie

        I like the F22. But it doesn’t take a genius to see that it’s too freaking expensive. Worse, it has a high likilihood of being made obsolete in short orer. Manned fighter planes could very well go the way of the battleship.

      • 0 avatar
        John Horner

        Part of the US’ economic problem is that we are falling back on military superiority as a point of pride. 5% of the world’s people cannot afford to account for 50% of the world’s military spending forever.

  • avatar
    redliner

    Food is not for burning. Fuel is not for eating.

    Whats so difficult to understand about that? I’m not opposed to bio-fuels made from recycled trash/garbage etc. though.

  • avatar
    Philosophil

    The level of discussion here is not healthy.

    - Shakes head, turns off computer, and heads outside to cut and lay some tile for his latest home project….

    • 0 avatar
      Signal11

      I think this discussion had a potential to be interesting but got poisoned pretty fast.

      BTW, no kid standing in a food line is going to be eating chicken. With a few exceptions, rural street price of a live whole chicken the world over seems to be about four bucks, give or take. When a day’s earnings runs out to about two bucks a day, a chicken is a pretty extravagant expense. When dirt poor people buy an animal, be it chicken or a goat, it’s an investment. It eats the things you can’t and produces eggs/milk. When it’s not producing anymore, that’s when you kill it and eat it.

  • avatar
    mikey

    Yup.. There’s country cruise, and a lake side bar,and I believe they have a cool beer with my name on it.

    Puts laptop to sleep.

  • avatar
    340-4

    Thomas Malthus would get a kick out of this one.

    Maybe people will breed less as a result?

    This will all go away when the process of making fuel from tanks of algae is perfected.

    Now, off to price a new Challenger.

  • avatar
    Jeff Waingrow

    How is it that TTAC people can speak with such intelligence and insight about cars, yet sometimes sound dumber than dirt about things political? An example: The use of the term “environmentalist” to describe someone. Is that not simplistic? I have friends who are all over the landscape on environmental issues. So what is the touchstone? And terms of opprobrium like “tree hugger” add nothing to the debate. What, you don’t like trees? You’re maybe a “car hugger”, though? Isn’t all this ridiculous? And who among is us isn’t playing a bit fast and loose with facts? Maybe Lebron was right, namely that tomorrow some still have to go back to their problems.

    • 0 avatar
      steeringwithmyknees

      +1

      Seriously, some of you should limit what you talk about to what you know about – which is very obviously not politics or poverty. Its great how intelligent you sound talking about people and places you have never laid eyes on.

  • avatar
    Scoutdude

    Lets get a couple of things straight, there is a net energy benefit to corn ethanol, corn ethanol take the food out of no ones mouth and in fact makes it cheaper. The leftovers of the process are sold as DDG or dried distillers grains and used for livestock feed, a tradition that goes back as far as the moonshiners who fed it to their livestock to get rid of the evidence and found out it was better for the animals than the unprocessed corn. For years the US gov’t supported food prices to make it profitable to run a farm by paying farmers to not plant their fields and buying up milk to keep those prices up.

    So which is better paying farmers to let their land sit or letting them plant and take their chances on making a profit? Fact is the US does supply much of the world with food even with paying farmers not to farm or “letting” them plant corn that is destined to become fuel. If other countries allow their population to grow to the point that they can’t produce enough food to feed them all should the US be expected to feed them and feed them at a loss to those producing the food?

    The big winner of the ethanol subsides are not the corn farmers or even the ethanol plants it’s the oil companies. The oil companies are the ones that get the VETC, get to sell you more fuel since you get less MPG on E10, lie to you that it costs them more to make E10 so they win 3 ways on the deal and get to blame the gov’t since the minimum amount of ethanol used is mandated. They are also the ones that drive up the price of ethanol and thus corn since as long as they pay the same or less for ethanol than it costs them to produce gas they come out ahead.

    • 0 avatar
      ixim

      So, does anything you say support the case for the ethanol subsidies? Would the farmers’ profits still be there absent the 3-way subsidy? And, yes, get rid of the price supports/payments for fallow fields; world food prices are high enough these days.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        The things I sated were not to support the subsidies, in fact it says we should eliminate them because they put more money in the oil companies pockets. Under the current RFS (renewable fuel standards) that mandate the minimum amount of ethanol that needs to be put in our fuel supply, yes the farmers profits would still be there. I’m not for the RFS as currently implemented (E10) as it wastes ethanol and gas which could be used to make a much better fuel a blend of somewhere between E40-E50 which produces better power, and as good as or better MPG than straight gas.

      • 0 avatar
        Brad2971

        Sure, let’s get rid of the payments for letting cropland lie fallow. Let’s go back to the days where large sections of Great Plains were plowed fence-to-fence. Those Dust Bowl days never affected the environment, you know.

        The whole world may hate US farm subsidies, but the idea that any man can live off 160 acres of land created its own problems.

    • 0 avatar
      ixim

      Points well taken, about ethanol’s potential and the windfalls for the oil companies. Still, any agricultural resource used for the production of fuel is not producing food, whether, absent ethanol, it would actually be used that way, or not.

  • avatar
    blowfish

    I’m not blaming people for their own poverty. I’m blaming them for creating new people to suffer along with them in poverty.

    Will they ever figure this out? Middle Kingdom bite the bullet 30 yrs ago, to have 1 child family. Its a high social cost, plus folks in MK all want a son to carry on the name!
    It doesnt need a rocket scientist to figure out, a family of 3-4 can be supported by a loaf of bread, a family of 10 will be lucky to find a 1/4 slice each.

    And their corrupted rulers, wonder if its better to have white folks to run the country on their behalf?

    • 0 avatar
      steeringwithmyknees

      it also doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that when you are in the last years of your life, that family of 10 will be able to do a hell of a lot more that a small one could to support your old ass.

      God knows relying on the rest of humanity would be socialist and therefore, wrong.

  • avatar
    blowfish

    Blaming poor people for “cranking out kids” is among the most ignorant and shallowest of thought patterns.
    so do we fix it, by sending more foods to Africa so their rulers will buy more arms, fast cars from us, while the population growth is not subsiding!

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      Sub-Saharan Africa is a huge clusterfrak in general. CJ does have a point that many of the problems come from corrupt government – the governments over there selling out to corporations that value the cheap labor to harvest cocoa or mine for diamonds over the value of human life.

      While I don’t think we are sending food over there so that anyone will buy guns or cars from us (are there any meaningful markets in Africa south of the Sahara and north of South Africa?) you do bring up a point in regards to the problems with food distribution. It’s similar to the case with North Korea where any food aid that’s sent over is grabbed by the government and military, only in the case of Africa it’s the corrupt government agents and the warlords.

      Even with making fuel from corn over here there is more than enough agricultural capacity to feed the starving in Africa, the problem is finding ways to get that food to the people who need it on a steady basis, and eventually finding ways for them to grow it themselves in communities with a sense of security so that they won’t forever be dependent on international aid.

  • avatar
    eldard

    Oh, keep the population growing. My area is number 1 in my country for producing corn. Remind me to invest in those. And cooking oil! We have lots of those, too. I take back what I said about tree huggers. I love them hippies!

  • avatar
    2ronnies1cup

    Environmental concern certainly helped to speed the withdrawal of DDT, but the main cause was that resistance was developing at a startling rate amongst Anopheles populations.

    Nowadays, resistance is so common that in most parts of the world you need to make a resistance assay before considering deploying DDT.

    • 0 avatar
      ExPatBrit

      That would mean that mosquitoes are “evolving”.

      That can’t be true because “evolution” is just a theory just like “gravity”.

      • 0 avatar
        th009

        Ooh … low blow!

      • 0 avatar
        AJ

        Certainly insects become resistant to chemicals (it’s how the pesticide manufactures stay in business) but that has yet to explain how a cat ends up as an elephant.

        Anyway… I am surprised by this from the UN, considering that they so often support the environmental left and depopulation goals. Keeping food as expensive as possible is a great way to do so as being elitists in power, they’ll be able to afford the food while the poor starve. Nice of them!

      • 0 avatar
        rpn453

        Certainly insects become resistant to chemicals (it’s how the pesticide manufactures stay in business) but that has yet to explain how a cat ends up as an elephant.

        Insects become resistant to chemicals because it’s in the best interest of pesticide manufacturers for that to happen, and cats evolve into elephants. What a magical world you live in!

  • avatar
    ExPatBrit

    Is that car in your Avatar an early 70s NSU Ro80?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India